sustainability

Article
Survey on Household Awareness and Willingness to
Participate in E-Waste Management in Jos, Plateau
State, Nigeria
Kangyang Josiah Miner 1 , Isaac Tebogo Rampedi 1, * , Ayodeji Peter Ifegbesan 2 and
Fannie Machete 3
1 Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy studies, University of Johannesburg,
P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa; 217071209@student.uj.ac.za
2 Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education, Onabisi Onabanjo University, P.M.B. 2002,
Ago-Iwoye 120107, Nigeria; ayodeji.ifegbesan@gmail.com
3 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa (UNISA), Florida Campus,
Roodepoort 1709, South Africa; machef@unisa.ac.za
* Correspondence: isaacr@uj.ac.za; Tel.: +27-11-559-2429




Received: 28 November 2019; Accepted: 21 January 2020; Published: 2 February 2020


Abstract: Nearly 290,000 tons of electronic waste was generated in Nigeria during the year 2017,
which is likely to increase further due to high population growth rates, accelerated urbanization,
high demand for electronic products, as well as disposal at their end-of-life. At the same time, e-waste
is associated with negative human health impacts, as well as environmental pollution. Therefore,
environmental awareness on this waste stream is crucial in its management and possible minimization.
In this paper, we report on a survey which investigated awareness levels and knowledge amongst
households in the Jos metropolis, Plateau State (Nigeria). We interviewed 228 respondents by
means of close-ended questionnaires. The results indicated that cell phones (93%) and television
sets (82%) were mentioned by most respondents. The main reasons for acquiring these electronic
devices entailed the replacement of damaged ones (49.6%), frequent product upgrades (37.7%),
as well as theft (35.55%), amongst others. The most predominant method of disposing e-waste
included illegal dumping in open spaces along with other household wastes (25%), storing it at home
indefinitely (27.6%), and selling it to others for possible reuse (17.5%). Although the handling and
storage of this waste is currently inappropriate, most respondents (84.2%) were willing to participate
in its management provided they are given appropriate knowledge (89.9%) on its safe disposal
and recycling. Lastly, we found no significant correlation between existing awareness levels on
e-waste and willingness to participate in its management based on the socio-demographical profile of
respondents. Thus, we recommend educational interventions on sound e-waste management in the
Jos metropolis, along with a systematic analysis of how policy interventions such as the extended
producer responsibility schemes can be designed for effective e-waste management and recycling
amongst all stakeholders.

Keywords: e-waste; awareness; willingness; correlations; disposal; households; Jos metropolis

1. Introduction
In 2016 and 2017, approximately 45 and 46 million tons of electronic waste (e-waste) was generated
globally, respectively [1]. Balde et al. [1] projected that the amount of e-waste generated is likely to
increase to 52.2 million tons by the year 2021. Mishra et al. [2] suggested that with an annual growth
rate of 4% to 5%, e-waste is becoming one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world. European
countries generate approximately 8.3 to 9.1 million tons of e-waste per annum, with Wu et al. [3]

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047; doi:10.3390/su12031047 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 2 of 16

projecting an increase of 12.3 million tons by the year 2020, while the USA alone is generating about
10 million tons annually. Moreover, the generation rates of e-waste are expected to rise further because
of the shorter life spans of some of the electronic products [1,4–6].
Electronic wastes, also known as waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), entail discarded
electrical or electronic equipment that are no longer useful to the end-users. This waste stream is also
comprised of electrical and electronic equipment such as mobile phones, laptops, computers, electric
bulbs, and television sets [7,8]. Several studies have indicated that the e-waste stream is a source of
about 1000 different hazardous components with potential threats to human health and environmental
quality, thus making its management a challenge or problem in most communities [9–11]. The severity
and significance of this problem is high in many developing countries, especially among those who
lack appropriate policies, environmental management systems, and processes to regulate this waste
stream, as well as suitable infrastructure to effectively and efficiently manage it.
Hence, the appropriation, utilization, disposal, and recycling of e-waste affect many stakeholders
in society, including households who play an important role in the generation and management of this
waste stream [8,12]. Due to some measure of ignorance in handling this waste stream, households
face greater challenges in the disposal of e-waste than is the case with industrial enterprises and other
institutions [8,13]. Thus, the extent to which households are informed and are aware of the problems
associated with e-waste becomes an important factor that influences their ‘utility maximizing decisions
about the handling’ of such wastes [14].
Nevertheless, in many developing countries, there is little household and public awareness about
the precautions and proper management of e-waste. In a study on e-waste knowledge and attitudes in
India, Sivanthanu [15] indicated that consumer awareness has a direct relationship with willingness to
recycle e-waste, which is a crucial condition for efficient e-waste management. Furthermore, there are
ineffective e-waste recycling efforts in developing countries such as Bangladesh and India because large
proportions of their populations are relatively unaware about the precautionary measures necessary
for handling and disposing e-wastes [15,16]. However, literature also points out that households in
these cities are willing to pay for the effective disposal of e-wastes [15–17].
It is projected that the population of Nigeria is likely to reach 200 million people before 2025
as it exceeded 180 million inhabitants in 2017 [18], along with a growing economic base with a
higher economic demand for electronic products such as mobile phones, laptops, and smart television
sets [19,20]. Given the accelerated rate at which these devices are being upgraded and improved by
manufacturers for enhanced functionality, the amount of discarded wastes from obsolete appliances
is growing exponentially, thus leading to increased e-waste generation rates [21]. This problem is
compounded by increasing e-waste imports from the USA and some of the countries in the European
Union [10,22]. According to the United Nations research, over 60,000 tons of e-wastes are being shipped
into Nigeria annually mainly via the ports in Lagos, apart from additional imports reaching this country
from neighbouring countries [23]. These amounts are excessive for Nigeria considering that nearly
290,000 tons of a similar waste stream were generated nationally during the year 2017 [23]. This increased
e-waste generation rate is leading to severe environmental management problems due to indiscriminate
dumping in public open spaces, and river banks where it is illegally dumped alongside municipal
or hospital wastes. Consequently, these unsafe practices are leading to undesirable environmental
despoliation likely to worsen as most cities in Nigeria lack efficient management systems for dealing
with e-wastes [24]. According to Nnorom and Osibanjo [24], the National Environmental Standards
and Regulatory Enforcement Agency (NESREA) responsible for the administration of environmental
laws, guidelines, and implementation in Nigeria, lacks appropriate resources, skills, and technology
for proper e-waste management. Hence, large quantities of e-waste are smuggled into Nigeria as a
result of inherent institutional weaknesses, thus creating greater e-waste management challenges.
Although research on e-waste at household level has been conducted in some of the states in
Nigeria [19,25,26], there is still limited research on the knowledge and awareness of e-waste streams
across many states. Therefore, in this paper, household e-waste awareness and knowledge in the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 3 of 16

Jos metropolis of Plateau State (Nigeria) have been surveyed and the key questions are summarized
as follows:

1. What types of electronic devices are used by households within this metropolis?
2. How much awareness and knowledge exists amongst households regarding e-waste?
3. Is there any willingness amongst households to participate in e-waste management?
4. What methods are used in disposing away e-waste in this metropolis?

In addition to these research questions, two different hypotheses were formulated to help validate
and illuminate our results while enriching existing theory on e-waste management in the study area:

• There are no significant differences in the knowledge and awareness levels amongst households
according to their socio-demographic characteristics.
• There are no significant differences in household willingness to participate in e-waste management
depending on their socio-demographic characteristics.

2. Literature Background

2.1. E-Waste Classification and Sources

E-waste refers to all electrical and electronic equipment which are discarded by their owners
because they are considered no longer useful unless they are reused and recycled. The environmental
regulatory body of Nigeria, the National Environmental Standards and Regulatory Enforcement Agency,
which was established in 2007 [27] defines e-waste as “any Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment
(WEEE) that is old and near its end of life or any discarded electrical/electronic appliance that uses
electricity”. Furthermore, the European Union Directive (2018/849) [28] has reviewed the classification
of e-waste from nearly 10 to only six categories or classes for international use (Table 1).

Table 1. Electronic (e-waste) waste categories [28].

Refrigeration and freezing equipment such as freezers, air

1 Temperature exchange equipment
conditioners, and refrigerators
Distinctive appliances include computers, laptops, notebooks,
2 Screens, monitors
and televisions
Typical devices include photocopiers, washing machines, dish
3 Large equipment
washers, and much more
Fluorescent lamps and light emitting diodes (LEDs)
4 Lamps
are examples
Typical examples include microwave ovens, radios, video
5 Small equipment
cameras, and electric shavers
These include devices such as telephones, cell phones, and
6 Small ICT
electronic toys

2.2. E-Waste Awareness and Management

E-waste is generated from several sources which include industries, institutions, and
households [29–31]. Some of the electronic devices have very shorter life spans and are frequently
changed, thus leading to increased waste generation rates [32,33]. For instance, mobile phones have a
higher disposal rate due to the accelerated rates at which they are being improved.
E-waste contains both valuable and harmful components which can be toxic to human health and
the environment [23,34–38]. This point is also corroborated by Machete [39] and others [40,41] that
e-waste exposes people to hazardous elements such as lead, mercury, calcium, and arsenic. Moreover,
some diseases such as pulmonary and cardiovascular illnesses, as well as respiratory and neurological
ailments, may be exacerbated by exposure to the hazardous materials stemming from this waste
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 4 of 16

stream [13,19,23,34,42,43]. Unfortunately, large quantities of e-waste are accumulating in households

and offices as they
Sustainability become
2020, 12, x FOR PEER obsolete
REVIEWand are no longer optimally useful [36,39,44]. With this waste
4 of 16
accumulation comes storage and disposal problems.
households to
According and offices
Afroz et as
al.they
[45],become obsolete andinare
most households thenourban
longer optimally
areas useful
of Africa [36,39,44].
have at least With
one piece
this waste
of electronic accumulation
product rangingcomesfrom storage
mobile and disposal
phones problems.
and laptops to very large appliances such as television
sets as wellAccording to Afroz etHowever,
as refrigerators. al. [45], most
when households in the urban
these electronic areasare
devices of Africa have atconsumers
purchased, least one are
piece of electronic product ranging from mobile phones and laptops to very large appliances such as
rarely given any detailed information on how to handle and properly discard them at the end of their
television sets as well as refrigerators. However, when these electronic devices are purchased,
useful period, thus leading to ineffective e-waste management [46]. Consequently, the resulting waste
consumers are rarely given any detailed information on how to handle and properly discard them at
is simply stored
the end indefinitely
of their insidethus
useful period, offices, government
leading storehouses,
to ineffective as well as households
e-waste management with a view
[46]. Consequently,
to dispose of them some time in the future [47]. Given these trends, inappropriate
the resulting waste is simply stored indefinitely inside offices, government storehouses, as well disposal of e-wastes
as
is becoming
households a serious
with aenvironmental
view to dispose andof public
them somehealth problem
time in the throughout
future [47]. many
Given African countries
these trends,
and isinappropriate
accentuateddisposal by lack of of e-wastes
suitable iscommunity
becoming awaste collection
serious environmentaland recycling
and public facilities [10,21,33,48].
health problem
throughout
To this extent, many African
several countries
studies haveand is accentuated
raised the importance by lack of of suitable
e-waste communitytowards
knowledge waste the
collection and recycling facilities [10,21,33,48].
successful management of this waste stream [15,25,48–50]. Methods for the disposal of e-waste are
largely a To this extent,
function several studies
of attitudes have raisedlevels
and awareness the importance
amongst of e-waste knowledge
stakeholders, includingtowards the
households.
successful management of this waste stream [15,25,48–50]. Methods for the disposal of e-waste are
As highlighted by Bhat and Patil [51], “consumer awareness plays a major role to route e-waste to the
largely a function of attitudes and awareness levels amongst stakeholders, including households. As
authorized collection centers and authorized recyclers for safe disposal”. Thus, many international
highlighted by Bhat and Patil [51], “consumer awareness plays a major role to route e-waste to the
studies have highlighted
authorized the importance
collection centers of individual
and authorized recycling
recyclers for attitudes,
safe disposal”. behavioural
Thus, dispositions,
many international
and waste
studiesdisposal habits in the
have highlighted moderating
importance theofeffectiveness of waste
individual recycling management
attitudes, [12,52–54].
behavioural According
dispositions,
to Shah [46], for effective e-waste collection and enhanced recycling
and waste disposal habits in moderating the effectiveness of waste management [12,52–54]. rates to occur, there is a need for
greater public awareness.
According to Shah [46],Similarly,
for effectiveother studies
e-waste attribute
collection and shortfalls in e-waste
enhanced recycling management
rates to poor
to occur, there
is a attitudes,
recycling need for greater public awareness.
while existing awareness Similarly,
levels are other studiesenough
not always attribute
forshortfalls
the proper in management
e-waste
management
of e-wastes [50,55]. to poor recycling attitudes, while existing awareness levels are not always enough for
the proper management of e-wastes [50,55].
3. Study Area, Materials, and Methods
3. Study Area, Materials, and Methods
3.1. The Study Area
3.1. The Study Area
This survey was conducted amongst households in the Jos metropolis (Nigeria). Jos is the
This survey was conducted amongst households in the Jos metropolis (Nigeria). Jos 2is the
administrative capital of Plateau State in Nigeria and has a total land mass of about 249.7 km (Figure 1).
administrative capital of Plateau State in Nigeria and has a total land mass of about 249.7 km 2 (Figure
This city is located at an elevation of 1238 m (i.e., 4062 ft) above sea level [56] and is comprised
1). This city is located at an elevation of 1238 m (i.e., 4062 ft) above sea level [56] and is comprised of of two
local two
Government Areas (LGAs),
local Government namely,
Areas (LGAs), (1) Jos(1)South
namely, andand
Jos South (2) Jos North
(2) Jos as as
North shown
shownininFigure
Figure 1.
1.

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Jos Metropolis in Plateau State.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 5 of 16

Jos is also one of the coolest cities in Nigeria with temperatures ranging from 22 to 32 ◦ C (minimum
and maximum, respectively) and has attracted many settlers from different parts of Nigeria, as well as
foreigners from other countries. The Dilimi River is an important source of water to many other states
in Nigeria, both for domestic and agricultural activities, especially for irrigation farming.
Jos city was chosen for this survey mainly because of the importance of prevailing economic
activities, an accelerated pace of urbanization, and a population size of about 1 million people, along
with the increased burden of municipal waste management [57]. According to Peter et al. [58], the urban
population in Jos is increasing at a rate of 5.5%, and similarly the proportion of e-waste is expected to
rise concomitantly. Furthermore, this metropolis serves as the business hub of Plateau State, thus is
home to some of the largest electrical and electronic stores which include household brands such as
PZ, LG, and Samsung. Given this background, large amounts of e-wastes are generated from this city,
thus necessitating the need for more empirical research to provide solutions to this environmental
management problem.

3.2. Survey Procedures and Sampling Framework

The aim of this survey was to investigate knowledge and awareness levels related to e-waste
and related issues amongst households in Jos. Similarly, with an e-waste survey conducted by
Nduneseokwu et al. [59] in the city of Onitsha in Anambra State (Nigeria), the respondents for
the present survey were selected randomly across Jos. Household heads were the main targets for
face-to-face questionnaire-administered interviews. The principle of random sampling in our survey
was intended to bring statistical credibility, as well as data representability, thus in line with previous
research approaches adopted to investigate the willingness and behaviour of residents towards e-waste
recycling in Beijing (China) [60]. Moreover, Bhat and Patil [51] followed a random sampling approach
in attempting to understand the consciousness, as well as the disposal practices of residents of Pune
city in India.
In total, 300 questionnaires were administered to households’ respondents during our survey
although only 228 were successfully populated, thus yielding a response rate of 76%. Such
interviews were conducted mostly in English although there were translations into the regional
indigenous language known as ‘Hausa’ whenever respondents experienced difficulties in understanding
interview questions.

3.3. Data Collection Methods

The survey collected mainly quantitative primary data through interviews from June 2018 until
September 2018. The questionnaires were comprised of close-ended questions that were grouped into
four different sections that are summarized as follows:

• Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents.

• Knowledge and awareness of electronic wastes.
• Reasons for changing electronic products.
• Environmental problems associated with e-waste management.

From an ethical point of view and consonant with the research policy of the University of
Johannesburg, interviews for collecting primary data occurred only when respondents offered prior
informed consent for their participation in this survey. Such consent meant that the respondents
understood the purpose of the surveys and gave permission for interviews while their privacy and
anonymity were being protected.

3.4. Data Analyses

Primary data collected during interviews were stored in MS Excel (Version 2016) for further
processing and coding. Subsequently, the data were subjected to both descriptive and inferential
statistical analyses by making use of the SPSS 25 version. The hypotheses were subjected to t-tests and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 6 of 16

analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regarding the testing of these hypotheses, a probability level of 0.05
(p < 0.05) was taken into consideration. The results are presented in the next section by means of tables
and different types of statistical illustrations.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

Table 2 summarizes the demographic data of respondents. Out of the 228 respondents, 73.7%
(n = 168) were men while 26.39% (n = 60) were women. Since we interviewed only household heads
who are traditionally men, it is not surprising that women were highly under-represented. The highest
percentage (51%; n = 116) of respondents was in the 31 to 40 age category whereas individuals aged 51
to 60 years were less represented (7%; n = 1). Most of the respondents had attained tertiary educational
qualifications (93.27%; n = 208), while fewer respondents either had no education at all (0.45%; n = 1)
or had completed only primary schooling (0.45%; n = 1). In terms of marital status, most respondents
were married (75%; n = 171) whereas single individuals amounted to only 25% (n = 57).

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents (n = 228).

Variable Category Frequency (F) Percentage (%)

Male 160 70.2%
Gender
Female 68 29.8%
Less than or equal to 30
52 22.8%
years
31–40 years 116 50.9%
Age
41–50 years 42 18.4%
51–60 years 16 7%
Above 60 years 2 0.9%
Single 57 25%
Marital status
Married 171 75%
No formal education 1 0.45%
Primary education 1 0.45%
Educational level
Secondary education 13 5.82%
Tertiary education 208 93.27%

Although most occupations occurred in nearly the same proportions (i.e., 10.53% for informal
trading and 12.72% for others) amongst the respondents, most of them were employed as civil servants
(46.1%; n = 105) (Table 3). Nearly 58% (57.9%; n = 132) of the respondents earned incomes between
$83.3 and $250 while the proportions of those earning between $252.7 and $416.6, as well as $419.4 to
$583.3 were 14.5% (n = 33) and 16.2% (n = 37), respectively. Given these results, those who received
earnings below $83.3, which is the national minimum wage in Nigeria, are equivalent to 29% (n = 66)
while the rest (71%; n = 162) received monthly incomes that exceeded this minimum wage.
Regarding family size, 34.64% (n = 79) and 29.8% (n = 68) of respondents accounted for households
occupied by three to four or five to six persons, respectively, while families with nine or more people
were represented by only 5.3% (n = 12) of the respondents. Depending on the age and income levels of
the respondents, family size may give an indication of how many electronic goods and devices they
would probably buy, and how much e-waste could be expected.
Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 2020, 12,
12, 1047
x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of
of 16
16

Table 3. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents (n = 228).

Table 3. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents (n = 228).
Aspects Components Frequency Percentage
Aspects Civil servant
Components 105
Frequency 46.1%
Percentage
Trading
Civil servant 10524 10.53%
46.1%
Farming
Trading 2428 12.3%
10.53%
Occupation
Farming
Mining 2816 12.3%
7%
Occupation
Mining
Student 1626 7%
11.4%
Student 26 11.4%
Others 29 12.72%
Others 29 12.72%
$83.3–$250 132 57.9%
$83.3–$250
$252.7–$416.6 13233 57.9%
14.5%
$252.7–$416.6 33 14.5%
Income $419.4–$583.3 37 16.2%
Income $419.4–$583.3 37 16.2%
$586.1–$833.3
$586.1–$833.3 1616 6.6 %
6.6 %
$833.3
$833.3 1010 4.8%
4.8%
1–2 persons
1–2 persons 4242 18.42%
18.42%
3–4 persons
3–4 persons 7979 34.64%
34.64%
Family size 5–6 persons 68 29.8%
Family size 5–6 persons 68 29.8%
7–8 persons 27 11.84%
97–8 persons
persons and 27 11.84%
12 5.3%
above
9 persons and above 12 5.3%

4.2. Knowledge and Awareness of Electronic Wastes

In Figure
Figure2,2,thethe
proportions of several
proportions types types
of several of electronic devices used
of electronic by members
devices used by ofmembers
households of
are depicted.are
households Both cell phones
depicted. Both (93%) and television
cell phones (93%) and sets (82%) were
television setsmentioned
(82%) werebymentioned
most respondents.
by most
Nowadays,
respondents.cell phones arecell
Nowadays, some the most
phones ubiquitous
are some the mostand ubiquitous
indispensableandelectronic products
indispensable inside
electronic
households, as affirmed by a study conducted by Okoye and Odoh [61]
products inside households, as affirmed by a study conducted by Okoye and Odoh [61] in Onitsha in Onitsha (Nigeria).
Furthermore, devices such
(Nigeria). Furthermore, as radio
devices such (59%), laptops
as radio (59%),
(59%), DVDs
laptops (61%),
(59%), kitchen
DVDs appliances
(61%), (64%), and
kitchen appliances
refrigerators (66%) were reported
(64%), and refrigerators (66%) by werenearly an equal
reported by proportion
nearly anofequal
respondents.
proportion According to a study
of respondents.
conducted
According intoIndia [47], conducted
a study increased purchases
in India of electronic
[47], devices
increased can be ascribed
purchases to the rising
of electronic devices economic
can be
growth,
ascribedalthough someeconomic
to the rising electronic growth,
devices in our study
although were
some least mentioned
electronic devicesby in the
ourrespondents.
study were Suchleast
devices
mentioned entailed
by thefood warmingSuch
respondents. appliances
devices(microwaves)
entailed food (39%),
warming media players(microwaves)
appliances (43%), and desktop
(39%),
computers
media players(43%). As noted
(43%), by Saritha
and desktop et al. [62],(43%).
computers regardless of theby
As noted type of electronic
Saritha goods
et al. [62], being bought
regardless of the
at household
type level,
of electronic at one
goods stagebought
being they will reach the end
at household ofat
level, their
onelife span,
stage theythus
willnecessitating
reach the endthe of need
their
for disposing them away.
life span, thus necessitating the need for disposing them away.

Figure 2. Electronic devices mentioned by respondents.

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

The results depicted in Table 4 indicate that 67.5% (n = 154) of respondents are aware of e-wastes,
although 68% (n = 155) claimed that they have not received detailed education on the handling and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 8 of 16
disposal of this waste stream. Not receiving education on e-waste handling protocols is typical of
many developing countries such as Nigeria and others where there is a lack of resources and
institutional
The resultssupport for increased
depicted in Table 4 dissemination
indicate that 67.5% (n = 154)knowledge
of applicable on e-waste
of respondents [48,50,61].
are aware of e-wastes,
although 68% (n = 155) claimed that they have not received detailed education on the handling and
Table
disposal of 4. Statements
this estimating
waste stream. Not awareness and knowledge
receiving education of e-waste
on e-waste amongst
handling respondents
protocols (n = 228).
is typical of many
developing countries such as Nigeria and others
Statements Estimating E-Waste Awareness andwhere there is a lack of resources and institutional
No (%) Yes (%)
support for increased dissemination of applicable knowledge on e-waste [48,50,61].
Knowledge
Do you know what e-waste or electronic waste is? 74 (32.5%) 154 (67.5%)
TableDo4. Statements estimating
you know that e-wasteawareness and knowledge
requires special e-waste amongst respondents (n = 228).
treatmentofbefore
112 (49.1%) 116 (50.9%)
disposal?
Statements Estimating E-Waste Awareness and Knowledge No (%) Yes (%)
Do you know that improper e-waste disposal is harmful to
Do you know what e-waste or electronic waste is? 61 (27.5%) 157
74 (32.5%) (72.5%)
154 (67.5%)
the environment?
Do you know that e-waste requires special treatment before disposal? 112 (49.1%) 116 (50.9%)
Arethat
Do you know youimproper
aware that e-waste
e-waste contains
disposal harmful
is harmful substances?
to the environment? 73 (32.0%) 155 (68.0%)
61 (27.5%) 157 (72.5%)
Are you
Are you aware aware of
that e-waste the health
contains risks
harmful associated with e-waste?
substances? 90 (39.5%) 138 (60.5%)
73 (32.0%) 155 (68.0%)
Are you aware
Haveofyou
the health risks
received associatedon
education with e-waste?
e-waste before? 90 (39.5%)
155 (68.0%) 138 (60.5%)
73 (32.0%)
Have you Do
received education
you think on e-waste
sorting e-wastebefore?
is important towards 155 (68.0%) 73 (32.0%)
Do you think sorting e-waste is important towards improving waste management? 21 (9.2%)21 (9.2%)
207 (90.8%)
207 (90.8%)
improving waste management?

Regardless of of these
theselimitations,
limitations,manymanyofofthe the respondents
respondents mentioned
mentioned thatthat they
they are are aware
aware of
of the
the toxicity
toxicity or harmfulness
or harmfulness (68%;(68%; n =of155)
n = 155) thisof this stream
waste waste stream and inherent
and inherent health
health risks risks n(60.5%;
(60.5%; = 138)
n = 138) associated
associated with unsafewithdisposal
unsafe disposal
practices,practices,
and hence and
thehence
specialthetreatment
special treatment
it requiresit for
requires for safe
safe disposal
disposal
(50.9%; n(50.9%;
= 166). n =By166). By comparison,
comparison, such such relatively
relatively higher
higher awareness
awareness levelsonone-waste
levels e-waste amongst
households have have also
also been
beenreported
reportedby byanother
anotherstudystudyconducted
conductedininEnuguEnugu West
WestSenatorial
Senatorial District in
District
Nigeria [63]. Consequently, in the present study 90.8% (n = 207) of respondents
in Nigeria [63]. Consequently, in the present study 90.8% (n = 207) of respondents expressed the expressed the opinion
that e-waste
opinion that sorting
e-wasteissorting
important (Table 4).(Table 4).
is important
Figure
Figure 33indicates
indicatesthetheresults regarding
results regardingthe different sourcessources
the different of learning about e-waste
of learning aboutat e-waste
household at
level in the Jos metropolis. To a greater extent, most of the knowledge
household level in the Jos metropolis. To a greater extent, most of the knowledge sources on e-wastesources on e-waste were
mentioned
were mentioned by relatively fewer respondents—schooling
by relatively fewer respondents — schooling = 30), television
(13.2%; n(13.2%; n = 30), television = 26), and
(11.4%; n(11.4%; n=
workplaces (11%; n = 25).
26), and workplaces (11%; Moreover, other learning
n = 25). Moreover, otheravenues such
learning as information
avenues such asreceived fromreceived
information national
or community
from national or radios
community = 14) and
(6.1%; nradios local
(6.1%; n =awareness
14) and localprograms
awareness(3.9%; n = 9) were
programs (3.9%;mentioned
n = 9) wereby
even fewer respondents.
mentioned by even fewerOn the other hand,
respondents. On the proportion
other hand,ofthe respondents
proportionwho have not been
of respondents exposed
who have
to any source of e-waste learning was comparatively higher (32.5%; n = 74),
not been exposed to any source of e-waste learning was comparatively higher (32.5%; n = 74), thus thus denoting the generally
low level the
denoting of priority
generallythatlowis placed
level ofon e-waste
priority learning
that in the
is placed on study
e-waste area.
learning in the study area.

Figure 3. Sources of learning about e-waste amongst respondents.

4.3. Reasons for Changing Electronic Products

There are different reasons for changing and acquiring new electronic devices and the results on
these aspects are summarized in Figure 4. Most respondents strongly agreed that they were acquiring
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

4.3. Reasons for Changing Electronic Products

There are different reasons for changing and acquiring new electronic devices and the results on
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 9 of 16
these aspects are summarized in Figure 4. Most respondents strongly agreed that they were acquiring
electronic devices mainly because of product damages (35.1%), upgrades (32.9%), theft (26.33%), and
the marketdevices
electronic introduction
mainlyofbecause
newer designs (25.4%).
of product damagesThese findings
(35.1%), concur(32.9%),
upgrades with conclusions madeand
theft (26.33%), by
Saritha
the et al.
market [62] that the
introduction acquisition
of newer of (25.4%).
designs electronicThese
goods is accelerated
findings by damages
concur with incurred
conclusions made onby
existing products, as well as the introduction of newer product designs. Four key reasons
Saritha et al. [62] that the acquisition of electronic goods is accelerated by damages incurred on existing that
influence the
products, change
as well of introduction
as the electronic devices among
of newer respondents
product designs. are
Fourevident from that
key reasons Figure 4, namely
influence the
damage,ofproduct
change electronicupgrades,
devices new
amongdesigns, and theft.
respondents are evident from Figure 4, namely damage, product
upgrades, new designs, and theft.

Figure 4.
Figure Reasons for
4. Reasons for changing
changing electronic
electronic devices.
devices.

Figure 5 illustrates the various methods of handling and discarding e-wastes in the study area.
Figure 5 illustrates the various methods of handling and discarding e-wastes in the study area.
Approximately the same percentages of respondents are simply storing e-waste in their homes (27.6%;
Approximately the same percentages of respondents are simply storing e-waste in their homes
n = 63) or dumping and mixing it with general household wastes (25%; n = 57). Storing e-waste at
(27.6%; n = 63) or dumping and mixing it with general household wastes (25%; n = 57). Storing e-
home is probably accentuated by the lack of a door-to-door collection program in the Jos metropolis.
waste at home is probably accentuated by the lack of a door-to-door collection program in the Jos
Such home storage of e-waste has also been reported in other studies due to the lack of feasible options
metropolis. Such home storage of e-waste has also been reported in other studies due to the lack of
for disposing it away effectively or reclaiming it for other uses [46,64]. With these state of affairs in the
feasible options for disposing it away effectively or reclaiming it for other uses [46,64]. With these
study area, residents are likely to dump their e-waste anywhere outside of their homes, thus in line
state of affairs in the study area, residents are likely to dump their e-waste anywhere outside of their
with findings from other researchers in Nigeria which attest to poor e-waste management practices.
homes, thus in line with findings from other researchers in Nigeria which attest to poor e-waste
However, Figure 5 also shows that some of the e-wastes are sold to individuals for possible reuse
management practices. However, Figure 5 also shows that some of the e-wastes are sold to
(17.50%; n = 40), which is a relatively more sustainable practice of dealing with this waste stream.
individuals for possible reuse (17.50%; n = 40), which is a relatively more sustainable practice of
Furthermore, to a lesser extent, e-wastes are burned at household level (7.90%; n = 18), thus contributing
dealing with this waste stream. Furthermore, to a lesser extent, e-wastes are burned at household
to local air pollution in the vicinity of households, or simply throwing it away at nearby dumpsites
level (7.90%; n = 18), thus contributing to local air pollution in the vicinity of households, or simply
(6.70%; n = 15) (Figure 5). However, some of the e-waste is sold to recyclers (7.5%; n = 17) or is donated
throwing it away at nearby dumpsites (6.70%; n = 15) (Figure 5). However, some of the e-waste is sold
(7.90%; n = 18) to people who need it, although these proportions are relatively lower compared
to recyclers (7.5%; n = 17) or is donated (7.90%; n = 18) to people who need it, although these
to the preponderance of environmentally unsustainable practices in the handling and disposal of
proportions are relatively lower compared to the preponderance of environmentally unsustainable
these wastes.
practices in the handling and disposal of these wastes.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 10 of 16

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Figure 5. Methods of handling and disposing away e-waste by households.

Figure
4.4. Environmental 5. Methods
Problems
Figure of handling
handling
Associated
5. Methods of and disposing
disposing
with E-Waste
and away e-waste
Management
away e-waste by
by households.
households.
4.4. Environmental
Based on Figure Problems
6, mostAssociated with E-Waste
respondents regardedManagement
e-waste as a serious (26.30%; n = 60) to very
4.4. Environmental Problems Associated with E-Waste Management
serious
Based on Figure 6, most respondents regarded e-wastenearly
(31.40%; n = 71) eyesore in the study area while equal (26.30%;
as a serious proportions regarded
n = 60) to veryitserious
as an
Based
important on
(28% Figure
to 6,
30.30%)most respondents
source of fugitive regarded e-waste
atmospheric as a
emissions. serious (26.30%;
Similarly, the n = 60) to
mismanagement
(31.40%; n = 71) eyesore in the study area while nearly equal proportions regarded it as an important very
serious (31.40%;
of e-wastes
(28% in the
to 30.30%) n = 71) eyesore
studyofarea
source in the study
is associated
fugitive atmospheric area while
withemissions. nearly
serious (28.5%) equal proportions
to very
Similarly, regarded
serious (27.60%) of
the mismanagement it as an
ineffective
e-wastes
important
municipal
in (28%
the studysolid to
is 30.30%)
areawasteassociatedsource
managementwithof fugitive
while
serious is atmospheric
it(28.5%)
also being emissions.
to veryblamed
serious for Similarly,
being
(27.60%) theofmismanagement
aineffective
source diseases
municipal among
solid
of e-wastes
people. in the study area is associated with serious (28.5%) to very serious
waste management while it is also being blamed for being a source of diseases among people. (27.60%) ineffective
municipal solid waste management while it is also being blamed for being a source of diseases among
people.

Figure 6. Environmental problems associated with e-waste management.

Figure 6. Environmental problems associated with e-waste management.
4.5. Households’ Willingness to Participate in Waste Management
4.5. Households’ Willingness to Participate problems
Figure 6. Environmental in Waste Management
associated with e-waste management.
The results on households’ willingness to participate in e-waste management are shown in
Table The results on households’
5. Determining willingness
such willingness was to participate
based in e-waste
on the different management
statements (Tableare shown in to
5) provided Table
the
4.5. Households’ Willingness to Participate in Waste Management
5. Determining such willingness was based on the different statements (Table
respondents during the survey. To a large extent, there was willingness amongst respondents to pay 5) provided to the
for The results
respondents
proper ondisposal
during
e-waste households’
the survey. willingness
To na =
(68.9%; large to participate
157).extent, onintheir
there was
Depending e-waste
levelmanagement
willingness areand
shown
amongst respondents
of commitment into
Table
pay
willingness,
5.
forDetermining
proper such
e-waste willingness
disposal was
(68.9%; based
n = on
157). the different
Depending statements
on their (Table
level
with such payments the local municipalities may find a source of revenue for providing drop-off of 5) provided
commitment to the
and
respondents
willingness,
facilities, during
with
thus thepayments
such
enhancing survey. To
the
collection a rates
large extent, there was
local municipalities
and recycling may willingness ofamongst
find a source
effectiveness respondents
of revenue
e-wastes forstudy
in the toarea.
pay
providing
for proper
drop-off e-waste
facilities, disposal
thus enhancing(68.9%; n
collection= 157).
rates Depending
and recycling on their level
effectiveness of
However, such observed willingness to pay for e-waste disposal contrasts with findings associatedof commitment
e-wastes in the and
study
willingness,
area. households
with However, withsuch
such payments
observed
in California the local
whomunicipalities
willingness
(USA) to pay for
expressed may
some find disposal
e-waste a source of
unwillingness revenue
contrasts
to pay extraforcharges
withproviding
findings
for
drop-off facilities, thus enhancing collection rates and recycling effectiveness of
effective e-waste disposal [65]. Be that as it may, we need to emphasize that the California studye-wastes in the study
area. However, such observed willingness to pay for e-waste disposal contrasts with findings
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 11 of 16

was conducted nearly thirteen years ago, of which it is not clear if their public willingness to pay
for e-waste disposal has not improved for the better in recent times. In addition, the need for more
education to improve knowledge and awareness levels in Jos was widely recognized (89.9%; n =
205). In the same way, the role of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy (86.8%; n = 196)
amongst the manufacturers and vendors of electronic products was seen as a viable means to manage
e-waste disposal in a relatively more efficient manner. However, judging the effectiveness of such an
intervention would require further engagement and collaboration with other relevant stakeholders,
notably those who will finance its implementation and logistical arrangements.

Table 5. Willingness of respondents to participate in e-waste management.

Statements Estimating Willingness to Participate in E-Waste

No Yes
Management
Would you be willing to pay a token in order to have someone
71 (31.1%) 157 (68.9%)
effectively dispose your e-waste?
Do you think programmes such as extended producer responsibility
30 (13.2%) 198 (86.8%)
can help you manage your e-waste better?
If you agree with question 49 above, are you willing to engage in such
36 (15.1%) 192 (84.2%)
programmes?
Would you want more education and awareness about e-waste? 23 (10.1%) 205 (89.9%)

4.6. T-Tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Table 6 indicates the results from t-tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for assessing the
relationships or differences between variables such as the respondents’ awareness of and willingness
to participate meaningfully in e-waste management based on their socio-demographic characteristics.
Our results showed no significant differences between the mean score of male (3.575; SD 2.135) and
female (3.892; SD 2.143) respondents regarding their awareness of e-waste. Similarly, we found
no significant differences in the willingness of respondents to participate in e-waste management
according to their socio-economic characteristics (Table 6).

Table 6. T-tests on the awareness and willingness to participate in e-waste management.

Std.
Gender N Mean t Sig.
Deviation
Male 153 3.5752 2.13582 −0.988 0.324 ns
Awareness
Female 65 3.8923 2.24390
Male 153 3.3125 1.12260 0.577 0.565 ns
Willingness
Female 65 3.2206 1.04875
Note: N: Number of respondents; t-value: Awareness t = −0.988; Willingness t = 0.577; Significant at p < 0.05 level.

Furthermore, the one-way ANOVA test (Table 7) showed no significant differences between the
awareness and willingness of respondents to participate in e-waste management according to their
educational levels, marital status, as well as age.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 12 of 16

Table 7. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test on awareness and willingness to participate in
e-waste management according to the education, marital status, and age of respondents.

Education Qualification Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between groups 55.158 4 13.790 3.030 0.019 ns
Awareness Within groups 964.952 212 4.552
Total 1020.111 216
Between groups 3.349 4 0.837 0.686 0.602 ns
Willingness Within groups 271.038 222 1.221
Total 274.388 226
Marital status
Between groups 27.798 6 4.633 0.985 0.436 ns
Awareness Within groups 992.422 211 4.703
Total 1020.220 217
Between groups 1.728 6 0.288 0.233 0.965 ns
Willingness Within groups 272.742 221 1.234
Total 274.469 227
Age
Between groups 15.169 5 3.034 0.640 0.669 ns
Awareness Within groups 1005.051 212 4.741
Total 1020.220 217
Between groups 6.739 5 1.348 1.118 0.352 ns
Willingness Within groups 267.730 222 1.206
Total 274.469 227
Note: N: Number of Respondents; Sig: Level of Significance at p < 0.05 level; df: Degree of Freedom; F: F ratio.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

In our survey, we investigated household awareness on e-waste and the associated willingness
to participate in its management in Jos (Plateau State of Nigeria). Sound knowledge and awareness
of e-waste is essential towards safe disposal, reuse, as well as its recycling, along with minimizing
exposure to harmful components. Based on the findings from our survey, the following conclusions
and recommendations are made.
Most (70.2%) of the respondents were men because many of them are household heads while the
most (50.9%) represented age group amongst respondents were in the category of 31 to 40 years old.
In terms of income levels, about 71% of respondents earned incomes above the Nigerian minimum
monthly wage of $83.3, thereby raising the likelihood of increased capacity to purchase electronic
goods as indicated in several studies.
Electronic devices mentioned by most households included cell phones (82%), televisions sets
(82%), DVDs (61%), as well as laptops (59%). Similarly, the level of awareness on e-waste amongst
the respondents was relatively high (67.5%), although many seemed to lack detailed knowledge and
proper education (73%) on the proper handling and management of e-wastes. For example, 32.5% of
respondents have never received any training from any source regarding e-waste management. Given
this weakness, community-based interventions to improve awareness levels on e-waste management
are recommended.
The most predominant reasons for acquiring more electronic devices amongst respondents entailed
damage to existing products, theft, product upgrades, as well as the introduction of newer versions.
Furthermore, several environmental problems from the perspective of the respondents were linked
to poor practices of disposing away e-wastes in their neighbourhoods, the most important being the
negative impacts it has on aesthetics, ambient air quality, as well as weak municipal management to
deal effectively with this waste stream.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 13 of 16

The majority of respondents were willing to participate in e-waste management programmes

(68.9%), as well as become involved in the extended producer responsibility schemes (84.2%). However,
existing literature [66–68] shows that to adequately evaluate the viability of introducing such schemes
would require further engagement, interactions, and collaboration with computer manufacturers,
associated vendors, and other stakeholders who are likely to be affected by the financial and logistical
impacts involved.
Furthermore, the survey revealed some of the factors that may help moderate e-waste knowledge
and awareness amongst respondents, as well as their willingness to participate in its management
and possible recycling. Based on the hypotheses formulated for this survey, levels of awareness and
knowledge amongst respondents were not affected by any of the socio-demographical characteristics
of respondents. Similarly, there were no significant differences amongst respondents in terms of their
willingness to participate in e-waste management.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.J.M., I.T.R., A.P.I., and F.M.; Formal analysis, K.J.M., I.T.R., and
A.P.I.; Funding acquisition, F.M.; Investigation, K.J.M., I.T.R., and A.P.I.; Methodology, K.J.M., I.T.R., and A.P.I.;
Project administration, K.J.M.; Resources, K.J.M., I.T.R., and F.M.; Software, A.P.I.; Supervision, I.T.R. and A.P.I.;
Validation, A.P.I.; Writing—original draft, K.J.M.; Writing—review and editing, I.T.R., A.P.I., and F.M. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by funding from the University of Johannesburg and the University of
South Africa (UNISA).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Baldé, C.P.; Forti, V.; Gray, V.; Kuehr, R.; Stegmann, P. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2017: Quantities, Flows, and
Resources; United Nations University: Bonn, Germany; Geneva, Switzerland; Vienna, Austria, 2017.
2. Mishra, S.; Shamanna, B.R.; Kannan, S. Exploring the awareness regarding e-waste and its health hazards
among the informal handlers in Musheerabad area of Hyderabad. Indian. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 23,
143–148.
3. Wu, Q.; Leung, J.; Geng, X.; Chen, S.; Huang, X.; Li, H.; Huang, Z.; Zhu, L.; Chen, J.; Lu, Y. Heavy metal
contamination of soil and water in the vicinity of an abandoned e-waste recycling site: Implications for
dissemination of heavy metals. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 506–507, 217–225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Onwughara, N.I.; Nnorom, I.C.; Kanno, O.C.; Chukwuma, R.C. Disposal Methods and Heavy Metals
Released from certain Electrical and Electronic Equipment Wastes in Nigeria. Adaptation of Environmental
Sound Recycling System. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2010, 1, 290–297. [CrossRef]
5. Fraige, F.Y.; Al-khatib, L.A.; Alnawafleh, H.M.; Dwerji, M.K.; Langston, P.A. Waste electric and electronic
equipment in Jordan: Willingness and generation rates. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 161–175. [CrossRef]
6. Daliguite, R.; Zabulionis, D.; Sujetoviene, G.; Zaltauskaite, J. Waste of electrical and electronic equipment:
Trends and awareness among youths in Lithuania. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 95–101.
7. Awasthi, A.K.; Li, J. Management of electrical and electronic waste: A comparative evaluation of China and
India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 434–447. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, W.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Zhong, Y. Barriers for household e-waste collection in China: Perspectives from
formal collecting enterprises in Liaoning Province. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 299–308. [CrossRef]
9. Widmer, R.; Oswald-Kpraf, H.; Sinha-Kheriwal, D.; Schenellmann, M.; Boni, H. Global perspectives on
e-waste. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 5, 436–458. [CrossRef]
10. Terada, C. Recycling electronic wastes in Nigeria: Putting environmental and human rights at risk. Northwest. J.
Int. Hum. Rights 2012, 10, 153–172.
11. Zhan, L.; Xu, Z. State-of-the-art of recycling e-wastes by vacuum metallurgy separation. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2014, 48, 14092–14102. [CrossRef]
12. Manomaivibool, P.; Vassanadumrongdee, S. Buying back household waste electrical and electronic
equipment: Assessing Thailand’s proposed policy in light of past disposal behaviour and future preferences.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 68, 117–125. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 14 of 16

13. Liu, X.; Tanaka, M.; Matsui, Y. Electrical and electronic waste management in china: Progress and the barrier
to overcome. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 92–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Lim-Wavde, K.; Kauffmana, R.J.; Dawson, G.S. Household informedness and policy analytics for the collection
and recycling of household hazardous waste in California. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 88–107.
[CrossRef]
15. Sivanthanu, B. User’s Perspective: Knowledge and attitude toward’s E-waste. Int. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2016,
11, 413–432.
16. Ansari, N.L.; Ashraf, M.; Malik, B.T.; Grunfield, H. Green IT awareness and practices: Results from a
field study on mobile phone related e-waste in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International
Symposium on Technology and Society, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 7–9 June 2010; pp. 375–383. Available
online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5514618 (accessed on 25 November 2019). [CrossRef]
17. Borthakur, A.; Govind, M. Emerging trends in consumers’ E-waste disposal behaviour and awareness:
A worldwide overview with special focus on India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 117, 102–113. [CrossRef]
18. Onyeajuwa, M.K. Institutions and Consumers: Assertation of ordinary consumer interest in the Nigerian
digital mobile telecommunications market. Telecommun. Policy 2017, 41, 642–650. [CrossRef]
19. Omole, D.O.; Tenebe, I.T.; Emenike, C.P.; Umoh, A.S.; Badejo, A.A. Causes, impacts and management of
electronic wastes: Case study of some Nigerian communities. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2015, 10, 7876–7884.
20. Babayemi, J.O.; Osibanjo, O.; Weber, R. Material and substance flow analysis of mobile phones in Nigeria:
A step for progressing e-waste management strategy. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2017, 19, 731–742.
[CrossRef]
21. Azodo, A.P.; Ogban, P.U.; Okpor, J. Knowledge and Awareness Implication on E-Waste Management among
Nigerian Collegiate. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2017, 21, 1035–1040.
22. Ejiogu, A.R. E-waste economics: A Nigerian Perspective, Management of Environmental Quality. Int. J.
2013, 24, 199–213.
23. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Nigeria Turns the Tide on Electronic Waste. 2019.
Available online: www.unenvironment.org (accessed on 7 January 2020).
24. Nnorom, I.C.; Osibanjo, O. Electronic waste (e-waste): Material flows and management practices in Nigeria.
Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1472–1479. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Ben-Enukora, C.; Okorie, N.; Oresanya, T.; Ekanem, T. Awareness and perception of media campaign on
e-waste effects among residents of Ado-Ota, Nigeria. Covenant J. Commun. 2017, 4, 18–32.
26. Obaje, S.O. Electronic waste scenario in Nigeria: Issues, problems and solutions. Int. J. Eng. 2013, 2, 31–36.
27. National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Establishment). 2007. Available
online: http://www.placng.org (accessed on 20 November 2019).
28. EU Directives. Directive (EU) 2018/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018. Official
Journal of the European Union. 2018. L 150/93. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.150.01.0093.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2018:150:FULL (accessed on 20 January 2020).
29. Kumar, V.; Bee, D.J.; Shirodkar P, S.; Tumkor, S.; Bettig, B.P.; Sutherland, J.W. Towards sustainable product
and material flow cycles: Identifying barriers to achieving product multi-use and zero waste. In Proceedings
of the 2005 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 5–11
November 2005.
30. Reza, A. E-Waste Management in Bangladesh: Present Trend and Future Implication.
2011. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267762865_E-Waste_management_in_
Bangladesh_Present_Trend_and_Future_Implication (accessed on 20 January 2020). [CrossRef]
31. Ercan, O.; Bilen, K.A. Research on electronic waste awareness and environmental attitudes of primary school
students. Anthropologist 2014, 17, 13–23. [CrossRef]
32. Kiddee, P.; Naidu, R.; Wong, M.H. Electronic waste management approaches: An overview. Waste Manag.
2013, 33, 1237–1250. [CrossRef]
33. Alam, M.; Bahauddin, K.M. Electronic waste in Bangladesh: Evaluating the situation, legislation and policy
and way forward with strategy and approach. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 9, 81–101. [CrossRef]
34. Adediran, Y.A.; Abdulkarim, A. Challenges of electronic waste management in Nigeria. Int. J. Adv.
Eng. Technol. 2012, 4, 640–648.
35. Oliveira, C.R.; Bernades, A.M.; Gerbase, A.E. Collection and Recycling of electronic scrap: A worldwide
overview and comparison with the Brazilian situation. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1592–1610. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 15 of 16

36. Namias, J. The Future of Electronic Waste Recycling in the United States: Obstacles and Domestic Solutions.
Master’s Thesis, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Colombia University, New York, NY,
USA, 2013.
37. Kumar, S.N.; Jain, A.K. E-waste: Health Impacts in Developing countries. EHs J. 2014. Available online:
http://ehsjournal.org (accessed on 27 September 2019).
38. Al-Razi, K.M.H. Resourceful recycling process of waste desktop computers. A Review study. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2016, 110, 30–47. [CrossRef]
39. Machete, F. Environmental health risks associated with e-waste exposure in Badplaas, Carolina and Elukwatini
landfills, Republic of South Africa. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2007. [CrossRef]
40. Guo, Y.; Huo, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, K.; Liu, J.; Huang, J.; Xu, X. Monitoring of lead, cadmium, chromium and nickel
in placenta from an e-waste recycling town in China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2010, 408, 3113–3117. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
41. Nie, Z.; Tian, S.; Tian, Y.; Tang, Z.; Tao, Y.; Die, Q.; Huang, Q. The distribution and biomagnification of
higher brominated DDE’s in terrestrial organisms affected by a typical e-waste burning site in South China.
Chemosphere 2015, 118, 301–308. [CrossRef]
42. Pinto, V.N.; Patil, D.Y. E-waste hazard: The impending challenge. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008, 12,
65–70. [CrossRef]
43. Nowakowski, P. The influence of residents’ behaviour on waste electrical and electronic equipment collection
effectiveness. Waste. Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 1126–1135. [CrossRef]
44. Amachree, M. NESREA. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Global E-Waste Management
Network (GEM3), San Francisco, CA, USA, 15–19 July 2013.
45. Afroz, R.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Duasa, J.B. Survey and analysis of public knowledge, awareness and
willingness to pay in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia–a case study on household WEEE management. J. Clean.
Prod. 2013, 52, 185–193. [CrossRef]
46. Shah, A. An Assessment of Public Awareness Regarding E-Waste Hazards and Management Strategies
(2014). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 1820. Available online: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_
collection/1820 (accessed on 13 November 2019).
47. Nethaji-Mariappan, V.E.; Karthik, S.; Vineeth, K.S.; Varthamanan, S. E-Waste Management & Assessment—A
Review. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2017, 10, 924–936.
48. Jafari, A.; Heydari, J.; Keramati, A. Factors affecting incentive dependency of residents to participate in
e-waste recycling: A case study on adoption of e-waste reverse supply chain in Iran. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2017, 19, 325–338. [CrossRef]
49. Saphores, J.M.; Ogunseitan, O.A.; Shapiro, A.A. Willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviour: An
analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey of U.S. household. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 60,
49–63. [CrossRef]
50. Akhtar, R.; Masud, M.M.; Afroz, R. Household Perception and Recycling Behaviour On Electronic. Malays. J.
Sci. 2013, 33, 32–41.
51. Bhat, V.; Patil, Y. E-waste consciousness and disposal practices among residents of Pune city. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2014, 133, 491–498. [CrossRef]
52. Robinson, B.H. E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Sci. Total. Environ.
2009, 408, 183–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Townsend, T.G. Environmental issues and management strategies for waste electronic and electrical
equipment. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2011, 61, 587–610. [CrossRef]
54. Ezeah, C.; Fazakerley, J.A.; Roberts, C.L. Emerging trends in informal sector recycling in developing and
transition countries. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2509–2519. [CrossRef]
55. Thevchenko, T.; Laitala, K.; Danko, Y. Understanding consumer E-waste recycling behaviour: Introducing a
new economic incentive to increase the collection rates. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2656. [CrossRef]
56. Adzandeh, E.A.; Akintunde, J.A.; Akintunde, E.A. Analysis of Urban Growth Agents in Jos metropolis,
Nigeria. Int. J. Remote Sens. GIS 2015, 4, 41–50.
57. Dung-Gwom, J.Y.; Jugu, A.S. Characteristics and Planning Challenges of Hilltop Settlements in Jos Metropolis,
Nigeria. UPLanD J. Urban Plan. Landsc. Environ. Des. 2017, 2, 129–149.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 16 of 16

58. Peter, G.; Hull, A.; Jowitt, A.; Adeloye, A. Municipal solid waste management in greater Jos, Nigeria.
In Proceedings of the North America Conference on Sustainability, Energy and Environment, Providence, RI,
USA, 11–14 September 2014.
59. Nduneseokwu, C.K.; Qu, Y.; Appolloni, A. Factors influencing consumers’ intentions to participate in a
formal e-waste collection system: A case study of Onitsha, Nigeria. Sustainability 2017, 9, 881. [CrossRef]
60. Wang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Yin, J.; Zhang, X. Willingness and behaviour towards e-waste recycling for residents in
Beijing city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 977–984. [CrossRef]
61. Okoye, A.; Odoh, C. Assessment of the level of awareness of E-Waste management and concern for the
environment amongst the Populace in Onitsha, South Eastern Nigeria. J. Environ. Prot. 2014, 5, 120–134.
[CrossRef]
62. Saritha, V.; Sunil Kumar, K.A.; Srikanth, V.N. Consumer attitudes and perceptions on electronic waste:
An assessment. Pollution 2015, 1, 31–43.
63. Umaebolu, E.I. Fate of e-waste in households in Enugu West Senatorial district of Enugu State, Southeast
Nigeria. Int. J. Community Med. Public Health 2018, 5, 4200–4206.
64. Borthakur, A.; Sinha, K. Electronic waste management in India: A Stakeholder’s Perspective. Electron. Green J.
2013, 1, 36.
65. Nixon, H.; Saphores, J.-D.M. Financing electronic waste recycling Californian households’ willingness to pay
advanced recycling fees. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 84, 547–559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Gupt, Y.; Sahay, S. Review of extended producer responsibility: A case study approach. Waste Manag. Res.
2015, 33, 595–611. [CrossRef]
67. European Commission [DG ENV—Unit C2]. Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management
Performances—Final Report. Contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112. 10 April 2012. Available online: https:
//ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2020).
68. Leclerc, S.H.; Badami, M.G. Extended producer responsibility for e-waste management: Policy drivers and
challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119657. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).